Guest guest Posted January 30, 2001 Report Share Posted January 30, 2001 Namaste, anumaanam = a logical inference kaaraNatvaat = by reason of kaarya = produced by action [kaaryam] li~Ngaka = an indicator manasaa = by the mind nayyaayika = philosophers of the Nyaya [Logic] school puurvapaksha = the objector [in a debate] rachanaa = a construction sarvaj~na = omniscient sarvashaktimaan = omnipotent [sarvashaktimatvaat] shaastra = scripture [shaastram], especially with injunctions/teaching siddhiH = perfection; final accomplishment; yogic powers swaruupaat = by reason of inherent form tarka = logic [taarkika] vastu = essence of Being yonitvaat = by reason of its originating from [shaastra yonitvaat] Regards, s. advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > Inadvertently an uncorrected version got posted in the morning. Here > is the corrected version. (These passive voices are useful, aren't > they, to put the blame on non-free will factors!). Please substitute > the new version in place of the old. The contents, of course, remain > the same, since it is 'vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam' (the > transformation is only apparent in the name and form) and we are > advaitins! > > > Notes on BSB I-i-2-1D > > sadaashiva samaarambhaa.n sha~Nkaraachaarya madhyamam.h | > asmadaachaarya paryantaa.n vande guruparamparaam.h || > > I prostrate to the lineage of teachers starting from Lord Shiva who > is ever auspicious and with Bhagavaan Shankara in the middle and all > the way up to my own teacher. > > vaatsalya ruupa.n triguNairatiitaM > aananda saandram amalairnidhaanam.h .| > shrii chinmayaananda guro praNiitaM > sadaa bhaje.aha.n tava paada pa~Nkajam.h || > > Who is the very embodiment of motherly affection who is beyond the > three guNa-s, who is full with bliss, and who is the very source of > purity who is the best among the teachers, Shree Chinmayaananda, to > his lotus feet I (sadaa) always prostrate. > -- ------- > samanvaya adhyaaya - I > spashhTa brahma li~Nga vaakya samanvaya paada- i > janmaadi adhikaraNam 2 > suutra 1 : janmaadyasya yataH | > > > We are discussing Shankara's description of the Iswara in terms of > sarvaj~natvam. > > Shankara in his description uses another adjective- manasaa api > achintya rachanaa ruupasya. A scientist can possibly determine how > the brain functions, but he cannot recreate such a complex organ. The > Lord not only has omniscience - the know-how of how to create but to > implement that knowledge or execute that technology. That is, He has > enough power and skill to produce such a complex creation. One can > see and destroy an ant or bug easily or swallow the whole chicken in > few minutes after frying it. But to produce such a complex living > entity that can reproduce itself is unimaginable and we can not but > admire that great designer and executor. Hence Shankara says He is > sarva-j~na and sarva-shaktimaan due to sarva kaaraNatvaat - cause for > everything. > > This is the final meaning of the suutra 2. To summarize the whole > thing - the meaning is yasmaat abhinna nimitta upaadaana kaaraNaat , > aananda swaruupaat , sarva-j~naat , sarva shaktaat , pratyaksha > prapa~nchasya sR^ishhTi sthiti layaaH sambhavanti , tat brahma. > Because of which the non-differentiable intelligent and material > cause, which is of the form of pure bliss, omniscient, omnipotent > cause for creation, sustenance and dissolution of the visible > universe - that is Brahman. > > With this Shankara concludes his commentary on the second suutra. > After the conclusion he enters into another discussion by introducing > a puurvapaksha or objection from nayyayika -s (nyaaya philosophers). > Because of its importance we will discuss that aspect here. > > The first suutra says that we have to do Brahman inquiry. This can > be done only after it is established that there is something called > Brahman. To establish Brahman, it was said that - lakshaNa > pramaaNaabhyaam vastu siddhiH - we need a lakshaNam or a definition > and pramaaNa and means of knowing it. The second suutra provides > that lakshaNa for Brahman and the third suutra will provide pramaaNa > required. In the third suutra it is said that the pramaaNam for > Brahman is shaastram - shaastra yonitvaat . Now nayyaayika comes up > with a suggestion. He says why cannot one take the second suutra > itself as a pramaaNam for Brahman also. According to him, the second > suutra defines Brahman or Iswara as jagat kaaraNam, cause for the > world. Since jagat kaaraNam is Brahman, conversely jagat is kaaryam > of Brahman. That is if Brahman or Iswara is defined as the cause or > kaaraNam, then the world is the effect or kaaryam of Iswara > (nayyayika-s use Iswara instead of Brahman). Hence naayayika-s say > that the invisible Iswara can be inferred from the visible world just > as the invisible fire can be inferred from the visible smoke. Hence > nayyayika-s say the pramaaNam for Iswara can be simply anumaanam or > inference or logic. This anumaanam is popularly known in tarka > shaastra as - kaarya li~Ngaka anumaanam - the inference of invisible > kaaraNam or cause from visible kaaryam , or effect. From this > nayyayika arrives at a conclusion that shaastra pramaaNam is not > required to prove the existence of Iswara. Logic itself can do the > job without the need of shaastra. Generally it is understood that if > direct perception, pratyaksha, can establish an object, then we do > not need logic. Likewise, if pratyaksha cannot but logic can do the > job, then we do not need the next one, shabda pramaaNa to establish > the object. Hence nayyaayika -s argue that there is no need for > shaastra pramaaNa to establish Iswara. > > Advaitin as well as other vedantins would not agree for that. Iswara > cannot be established by pure logic without the help of shaastram. > There is a radical difference between taarkika and the vedantin. For > taarkika the logic is the primary means of knowledge with regard to > Iswara and shaastra is only of secondary importance while for > Vedantin it is the other way around (see Notes I for reference). We > will analyze this in detail since the relative roles of shaastra > pramaaNa versus anumaana pramaaNa will be established from the point > of two different philosophies, aastika -s vs. naastika -s. > > nayyayika-s argue that we do not need shaastra to prove the existence > of the Iswara. Just as when we see a person, even though we do not > know any thing about his parents, we know that he must have parents. > The very presence of an effect presupposes the existence of the > cause. Hence if there is a product there must be a producer whose > existence I can infer. Since the world or jagat is seen, there must > be a creator, Iswara. Thus by inference or anumaana, I can know the > existence of Iswara without the need of shaastra -s. Hence for > establishing Iswara or Brahman, anumaanam can serve as pramaaNam and > shaastram is not required - this is nayyaayika's argument. > > Shankara says it is not so. The second suutra does not provide > anumaana pramaaNam for brahma siddhi or iishwara sidhhi. Shankara > gives a simple reason for this, but the subcommentators provide > additional reasons. The argument is as follows. Vyasacharya does > not propound a new philosophy by using his reasoning power. This is > in contrast to many of darshanams (see Ch.I-for details) where the > basis of their new philosophy is the or anumaana pramaaNa. These > include saa~Nkhya, yoga, nyaaya, vaisheshhika, etc. all of which > propound new philosophies primarily based on tarka or anumaanam; and > Shankara calls all of them together as taarkika -s. They accept the > shruti pramaaNam only as subservient to anumaaNa. Uniqueness of > Brahmasutra is Vyasacharya does not establish the philosophy through > reasoning. He uses reasoning not to propound a new philosophy but > only to derive a cogent systematic philosophy of the Vedas. Hence > every suutra has got one or many Vedanta vaakyam -s or vishhaya > vaakyam -s as its basis. If one claims that the second suutra > establishes Iswara by anumaana pramaaNa then the very purpose of > Brahasuutra is defeated. Hence Shankara uses a beautiful line which > is often quoted and which was provided in Ch. I - vedaanta vaakya > kusuma grathanaarthatvaat suutraaNaam - every suutra is providing an > anumaaNam or reasoning alright but this reasoning is not an > independent anumaanam. It is used only to bring out the Vedantic > teaching in cogent form. It is like a thread to create a necklace or > garland of the flowers of vedaanta vaakyam -s. Here the garland is > the vedaanta darshanam and the flowers are the veda vaakyam -s. > The,tarka - thread is only hiding behind the flowers as subservient > factor and has no independent utility other than tying the flowers > together to form a beautiful garland of cogent vedantic philosophy. > Hence the second suutra does not provide an independent anumaana > pramaaNa but it is there to analyze the vedaanta vaakyam quoted > before: "etova imaani bhuutaani jaayante ...." to provide lakshaNa > suutra but not pramaaNa suutra. - This is the simpler answer > Shankara gives. The subcommentators provide further arguments. > > It is clear from their puurvapaksha , nayyaayika -s believe that > Iswara can be logically established. Vedantins vehemently disagree > with nayyayika -s in this aspect. Vedantins strongly believe that > Iswara or Brahman is revealed through shaastra alone. For Vedantins, > Iswara that is revealed through shaastra can be assimilated through > logic. In the discussions that follow we will see that nayaayika -s > use anumaana pramaaNam to establish Iswara and Vedantins take the > position like that of DMK politicians in Madras to show that their > logic is defective. > > Now nayyayika -s arguments: They deduce Iswara through three > anumaanam -s or logical statements. (See Ch. II for discussion of > anumaana pramaaNa.) 1. kshitya~Nkuradhikam (or jagat) sakartR^ikam, > kaaryatvaat , ghaTavat . - That is, the world must have a creator, > because it is an effect or product like a pot. The vyaapti vaakyam > for this is - yat yat kaaryam tat tat sakartR^ikam , that is, > whatever is product, it must have been created (by a creator). From > this anumaanam, they deduce first that there is a creator. 2. The > second anumaana vaakyam is, jagat kartaa iishvaraH , jiiva bhinnatve > sati chetanatvaat , vyatirekeNa kulaalavat. In this anumaanam , > nayyayika establishes that the creator must be Iswara alone, because > no jiiva can create this world and since the creator has to be an > intelligent or conscious being. Since there are only three entities, > jiiva , jagat and iishvara , conscious intelligent being other than > jiiva is only Iswara, and hence the creator of this world has to be > Iswara. This is called paarisheshha nyaaya , the logic by elimination > and residue. It is unlike a pot-maker, since like example cannot be > given as it is one of a kind. The vyaapti vaakyam is yat jiiva > bhinnatve sati chetanam tat iishvaraH - whatever is conscious being > other than jiiva that must be IswaraH. 3. The third anumaana vaakyam > is - iishvaraH sarva-j~naH sarva-kartR^itvaat vyatirekeNa kulaalavat > - that is IswaraH is omniscient since he is a creator of everything > unlike alpa-j~na kulaalaH or our good old pot maker who has knowledge > of only how to make a pot. The vyaapti vaakyam is yatra sarva > kartR^itvam tatra sarva-j~natvam api bhavati. This is called > lakshaNa li~Ngaka anumaanam. Thus nayyayika logically establishes > sarva-j~na iishvaraH, omniscient Lord. Therefore he argues that > existence of Iswara can be established logically and we do not need > Vedas to do that. A modern day rational intellect is more happy with > a nayyayika than a Vedantin who relies on shaastra which requires a > faith. > > Vedantin claims all these anumaana vaakyam -s or logical statements > are defective. Let us examine the first anumaanam - jagat > sakartR^ikam, kaaryatvaat, ghaTavat - the world is a creation because > it is a product, like a pot. For this nayyayika uses a vyaapti > j~naanam - yat yat kaaryam sakartR^ikam, wherever there is product > there must be a creator - example is like a pot. Every anumaana > vaakyam must require a vyaapti and this vyaapti vaakyam (statement > expressing concomitant relationship between hetu and saadhya - see > Ch. II) is derived from pratyaksha pramaaNa only. anumaanam requires > vyaapti j~naanam and vyaapti j~naanam is established by pratyaksha > pramaaNam alone. If vyaapti j~naanam is established by another > anumaanam then that second anumaanam requires another vyaapti and > this leads to infinite regress problem. It cannot be by shaastram > either, since nayyaayika -s have already rejected shaastra pramaaNam. > Like the example we gave in Ch. II - yatra yatra dhuumaH tatra tatra > agniH - this vyaapti j~naanam is arrived only by pratyaksha pramaaNam > only - or by direct observation. vyaapti arrived by observation is > valid only if it holds good in all the cases. Hence wherever there > is a smoke there is a fire is a valid vyaapti but the converse > wherever there is fire there is smoke is not a valid vyaapti, since > it does not hold good all the time. > > Now Vedantin argues - if you say where there is product there is a > creator - this is proved by pratyaksha only if the products are > man-made. How about natural products - there the creator for these > products are not perceptually proved. Therefore the defect in the > first anumaana is vyaapti asiddhiH since there is no pratyaksha or > direct observation of the creation of the universe by Iswara. > > Let us examine the second anumaana - jagat kartaa iishvaraH , jiiva > bhinnatve sati chetanatvaat , vyatirekeNa kulaalavat - Iswara is the > creator of jagat, since He is a conscious entity different from jiiva > . For this vyaapti j~naanam involves establishing that wherever there > is a conscious being other than jiiva is involved, it must be Iswara. > That means the vyaapti statement involves a presupposition of the > existence of Ishwara who is other than jiiva. But vyaapti j~naanam > must be gathered by pratyaksha pramaaNam only or by direct perception > since nayyayika has already discarded shaashtra pramaaNam . But > through perception we cannot talk about a conscious being other than > jiiva. Hence the second anumaanam is also defective since vyaapti > vaakyam cannot be established by pratyaksha . > > Now the third anumaana: iishvaraH sarva-j~naH sarva-kartR^itvaat > vyatirekeNa kulaalavat - Iswara is omniscient since He is the creator > of everything. Now to negate this anumaana we need to examine some > 'axioms' that nayyayika -s have assumed in developing their > philosophy. nayyayika-s say that every knowledge is born out of > mind. - yat j~naanam tat manojanyam - This axiomatic statement is > made since they depend heavily on the perceptions and inferences for > their philosophy. There may not be any problem with this statement > but in a different place they make another statement which appears to > be unrelated to this - iishvaraH asshariiraH - that is Ishwara does > not have body- that statement includes sthuula suuksham kaaraNa > shariiraaNi - gross, subtle and causal bodies - which obviously > includes the mind which is part of subtle body. The reason they took > mind away from Iswara is of their presumption that wherever there is > mind there is sa.nsaara - since Ishwara cannot have sa.nsaara, He is > made devoid of mind. Since according to nayyayikaa 's own > statements - that the mind is required for j~naanam and Iswara does > not have mind - hence it follows that Iswara being mind-less cannot > have any knowledge leave alone the sarva-j~natvam. This defect is > called - swa > abhyupagama virodhaH - defect involving self-contradiction or > contradicting ones own statements. Thus Vedantin proves that > nayyayika -s third anumaanam is also defective. (For the record, > these arguments are from the commentary called puurNaanandiiyam by > Purnananda Saraswati which itself is a commentary on bhaashya > ratnaprabhaa by Govindananda Saraswati which is in turn a comentary > on Shankara Bhashya). > > Hence anumaanam which is based on pratyaksha cannot be a pramaaNa for > establishing Ishwara, who is beyond the human perception and hence > beyond inference. Iswara established by anumaanam can be negated by > anumaanam. Hence shaastra alone is the valid pramaaNa for that which > is beyond the perceptual knowledge. If vedantin uses logic it is > blessed by shaastram - shruti sammata tarkeNa iishvara sidhhiH, na tu > kevala tarkeNa , or shushhka tarkeNa iishvara sidhhiH. That is logic > supported by the shaashtra is only valid for entities that cannot be > established by direct perception. The logic supported by direct > perceptions are invalid to establish Iswara since He is beyond direct > perception. > > One more point Shankara makes in his bhaashyam. The discussion does > not mean that tarka is totally useless in the inquiry. Shankara > emphasizes that tarka is important when properly used with the > support of shaastra. - shrotavyaH , mantavyaH , nidhidhyaasitavyaH - > the word mantavyaH indicates tarka is imporant for understanding > Vedanta. In fact the whole Brahmasutra is called nyaaya prasthaanam > - logical analysis of upanishhad -s. Hence the use of tarka as > subservient in understanding Vedanta. Shankara gives the reason why > tarka is important in Vedanta. He contrasts the karma kaandam and > j~nana kaandam - in karma kaanDa tarka has got a limited role. > There procedures of rituals is more important - what should be done > rather than why should it be done - There the knowledge of a ritual > does not produce the results - performance of the ritual does. The > benefit is the result of accomplishment of a ritual in time or > time-bound. Hence Shankara's language - karma-kaandasya > saadhya-vishhayatvaat karma pradhaanam , j~naanam apradhaanam - since > it deals with something to be produced in future doing is important > and knowing has only an indirect role. Suppose if moksha is > something to be produced in future then like karma kaanDa, procedure > is important than knowledge - hence people say I have studied Vedanta > and now I have to practice or do more practice - some meditation or > something else. Shankara says this is the common misconception. > Vedanta does not deal with a future event - the result of a process > or procedure. We are not learning any procedure, any technique or > method of meditation through Vedanta or implement something after > Vedantic study. It is dealing with the fact of moksha - which is an > accomplished fact! - which one has to understand. The whole > Vedantic saadhana is only a process of understanding and there is > nothing to implement after understanding. With the understanding the > end is accomplished. Whatever the obstruction in understanding need > to be eliminated. One of the obstruction is the intellect itself in > the form of sa.nshayaH or doubt - Hence tarka or mananam is very > important - it is not an independent tarka but to remove the > intellectual obstacles created in assimilating the Vedantic teaching. > Hence tarka serves in the understanding the Vedantic teaching and in > assimilating that teaching as one's own. There is nothing to do > after understanding since the very understanding involves - I am > akarthaa and abhoktaa. - I have nothing to do as I am ever > liberated. - Hence Shankara says shruti is imporant, yukti is > important and finally anubhava , which involves assimilating the > knowledge as one's own, is important. anubhava is important only > because our samsaara is present only in the form of anubhava - I am > limited, I am small, the helplessness- the feeling of inadequacy, the > misery due to that feeling, the doubt about oneself, the doubt about > the teaching of Vedanta, etc. The moksha is freedom from these > sensations - the puurNatvam , the samatvam - it is not anubhava or > experience in the form of mystic experience that comes and goes, but > anubhava in the form of full freedom from all limitations. The > understanding is complete when the sa.nsaara bhaavana or vipariita > bhaavana goes away- Hence the benefit of this understanding is HERE > and NOW - That I am eternally free and never was bound for any > process of un-binding required. Hence inquiry is to be done using > shaastra sammata tarka . > > With this Shankara's commentary on the second suutra is over. Next > the conclusion part. > > > Notes on Brahmasuutra-s are now stored in a folder and can be accessed at > advaitin/Notes+on+Brahmasuutra/ > for personal study. > > Copyright Protection - These notes are copyright protected. > -- > -- > K. Sadananda > Code 6323 > Naval Research Laboratory > Washington D.C. 20375 > Voice (202)767-2117 > Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.